Monday, October 21, 2002

TIME LAG, SPACE, AND STAFF ISSUES

MR. GIALAMAS: I guess I can tell you from Lo Angeles' end at a local level the time it takes for testing for us is about that time. It's anywhere from nine to 12 months turn-around once the case is brought in. I would think that with emerging technology we might be able to turn cases around faster than two months, but it's just what technology we're going to use and how we're going to apply it.

MS. HART: If you were looking at long-term goals; in other words, you were saying five years from now or ten years from now where would we want to be, what would you think is a realistic target to shoot for?

MR. GIALAMAS: From my perspective it would be essentially having either two programs or one program that works in complete. The biggest problem that we have with investigations is being able to get reliable information to investigators in a reasonable amount of time. When we have a case that's taking six to 12 months to turn around and meanwhile investigators are investigating the case, it does them no good six or nine months later to find out we exonerated the suspect that they've work so hard in pursuing. That needs to be made aware of immediately both for law enforcement's benefit and the subject's benefit.

If we were to take that perspective, it would be nice to turn samples around within a few days, perhaps five to seven days for investigative lead information, so that immediately we have some results that can be used, but maybe the case isn't complete and total by that point in time. If we were to extend it to a complete case, I would love to be able to say we would get it done in three weeks and within a month we would have the case done, complete, and ready for filing. That would be my dream, and I think that's doable within five years. We just need to apply the resources to be able to do that.

MR. SCHMITT: Other comments? If I haven't recognized you by name, if you would mention your name when you begin to speak so that the court reporter can make sure she has attributed your remarks to the right person. If you don't want your remarks attributed to you, you could perhaps say I'm Paul Ferrara and this is what he said.

MR. FERRARA: To expand a little bit on the question and Dean's comment, implicit in this discussion, at least in my mind, is that we're talking about the application of this technology to each and every possible case and instance. Keep in mind that the figures that you're looking at or that we reflect right now more often than not are reflecting laboratories which are being very selective in the types of cases that they are performing.

In Virginia with the exception of misdemeanor drug possession cases we're accepting DNA in almost every case with a turn-around time of probably six to nine months. I think our goal would be to, one, be able to work all of those types of cases, particularly those that form valuable investigative information, and to be able to turn that information around in priority cases in a matter of hours; on a routine basis certainly less than 30 days.

MS. CROUSE: I remember when the DNA Identification Act came out and we started getting our grant monies in the mid to late '90s. The most exciting thing about that grant was the realization that infrastructure had to change, and that included within the laboratory that special rooms needed to be made and special accommodations needed to be made for reagents and et cetera, et cetera, everything from refrigerators to the actual room itself.

Going to this type of automation I think we're going to have to revisit that point, that laboratories are just not set up for this even though many laboratories did a tremendous job in getting up to speed with having appropriate laboratory facilities for conducting PCR analysis. With the robotic system you're talking about going back to square one and revamping laboratories, at least the great majority that I have been in, including my own. We just bought a robot for our laboratory, and we had to take a hood out so we could put it down somewhere.

MR. SELAVKA: I think one of the things that everybody is kind of saying that needs to be enunciated clearly is there are really two paths. There is an investigative testing path with a short time frame where information must be provided to investigators in order to include or exclude suspects, but then there is the adjudication path. It will have a longer frame available to us as laboratorians, but we still have to do that. There are more items to test, more stains per item, and ultimately we're trying to demonstrate the absence of a third or fourth party at a crime scene. Basically the information that we might elicit through additional testing is going to include or rule out other actors that may be important for the defense's theory or for mitigation.

So we have the dual responsibility of quick results as well as complete results, and they don't need to be done at the same time. We're front loading certain testing for analysis turn-around time, but then in the end we still have to do more in those cases, more boxes, more items, more stains per item.

MR. SCHMITT: Let me ask you a question base on what Cecilia said and ask Carl and Dean in particular and everyone else, of course, do you have physical limitations in your current locations that are impediments to automation? It's not going to fit, you don't have the space, you need a new building, a new structure, you just can't add a wing on or knock down a wall.

MR. SELAVKA: In our laboratory we've taken to hiring anybody that's shorter than 4 feet tall. We're in a 22,000 square foot building with eight functional units of which DNA is one. So we're looking at 80 to 100 thousand square feet of additional space and another 50 staff. We only have eight DNA examiners in the mix for 6.5 million people.

MR. SCHMITT: Dean, do you have some more thoughts?

MR. GIALAMAS: Just on that comical note, you were fortunate enough to get a hospital. We're actually in a vacated sanitation district facility.

We have the same space issues certainly. In fact, our agency was the stepchild for what a DNA lab should not look like or a laboratory design. Fortunately for us, we're in the throes of building a new facility, and CC's comments are very well taken because here we are here struggling with building a new facility, and our laboratory is looking at building out about 27,000 square feet specifically for DNA, a DNA lab that will be 27,000 square feet to hold up to 72 analysts, and this technology change is such that obviously that's going in the wrong direction if this technology is going to be it.

The space could easily be modified, but if that's a reality in the next few years, then, sure, that's going to be a focus. But our current problem is space. If given people or equipment, I have nowhere to put them.

MR. SCHMITT: Is there a comment over here?

MR. KRESBACH: 72 analysts. CC and I, that's the wow. I've got three. So it's a completely different situation, I guess. I mean I'm in a brand new facility. I've got space for nine to 12 analysts. I have three. I've got plenty of room for these robotics. Throw me the number. I'll put them into place.

I think what some systems may have difficulty in, depending upon what eventually is decided, is say funding is eventually made available for some of these types of things. How is it ever going to filter down to people like myself or Cecilia or Susan that are at local and county laboratories with the way the current granting structure and the lawmakers' mindsets are? It's going to look real nice in our state laboratory, but it will most likely do me little to no good if I'm not given access to those types of things and such. I mean I hope that things can change or flexibility can be put into place, but in the interim at least from my perspective it's something of a pipe dream.

MS. HART: This is something that they're certainly very aware of in Congress and the Department, too. So the Department's position is that we need to support the local labs in the same way that the state labs are being supported. So I think that, although it's certainly not a done deal, there seems to be a very strong push in that direction.

MR. SCHMITT: We're talking about allowing units of local government to apply for the funding directly, which I think would ameliorate much of that, I hope.

We're going to get to personnel issues a little later, but one of the things that is kind of in the mix here from John's comment is - and I know you're going to say the answer to this question is both, but which do you all need more, automated systems or analysts? I'll leave that out there.

MR. TILSTONE: Just go back to your opening remark, in the last 18 months we've reviewed a number of things including workload in all the crime labs in four of the major states, and just as a piece of information, the average turn-around time for DNA cases was 176 days. The range was classes of 30, and the longest was 500. There is no consistent pattern in the turn-around time and the size of the lab and the number of analysts that they have. The two labs with the speediest turn-around time were one of the smallest and one of the largest. So I don't know where that leaves you in regard to your last question about do you need people or machines.

MR. SCHMITT: It may mean that some people need people and some people need machines.

MS. NARVESON: One comment I would make in regard to John's comment in regard to large city laboratories that exist within states of smaller population, I applaud NIJ's recognition of the special needs of those laboratories. I would also indicate that based on comments I'm receiving from some of the ASCLD members is that all of these efforts remain part of a comprehensive state plan. I think that was one of the very best things that came out of NIJ was that requirement to get laboratories within a state talking to each other such that we all know in which direction we're going.

Our needs are going to be different, and John's need is going to be different than the state labs. It's the same situation for many labs across the country. City, county labs are different from the state labs, but I do think that it's a very positive action in the right direction to have comprehensive state plans for each of these organizations.

MR. GIALAMAS: I was just going to add that needs may be different because personnel may be required to do different things. For instance, in our laboratory our criminalists are also responsible for responding to and attending to all the major crime scenes in the county, and that adds a tremendous burden in interruption in the daily work that we do, and because of that - and that's just an operational issue - that there may be factors that play into my agency because of operational demands and personnel demands that exceed what some other laboratories have having full-time people devoted to just doing DNA testing or perhaps ideally operating the machines that are doing the DNA testing.

MR. FERRARA: To answer your original question, Glenn, as to what do you need, robotics or analysts, and the answer clearly is both, while we pursue obviously automation, robotics to address the analytical end, I think all of the lab people here will attest that one thing that the robotics or automation cannot and will not replace are the need for the people at the crime scene, for the examiners to find DNA evidence to test in the first place from multiple hundreds of objects from single crime scenes, and then no robotics or automation is going to provide the testimony, respond to the discovery orders, and testify at trial.

So while robotics is very valuable obviously, we're watching in Virginia - we've got about 38 examiners, and we're trying to see what impact automation is going to have on their productivity, but one of the major limiting factors we're finding is the amount of time that the examiners are not in the laboratory, not involved directly in the DNA analysis itself, but evaluating physical evidence and/or testifying, appearing in court, responding to court orders, et cetera, et cetera, helping prosecutors, and so on. This is what on an average monthly basis limits our forensic scientists in Virginia to about six to eight cases per month per examiner.

MS. HART: The best way to say this I guess is much like they said earlier, which is you look at everything your analysts are doing and figure out what can be automated. What is routine stuff we're doing over and over again? So should the general approach here be to look at everything you're doing; that which you can automate, you should try to, you strive for that; and reserve your very valuable staff for the things that cannot be automated? Is that a fair statement?

MR. FERRARA: I'll say.